This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.
Inherently biased anti-govt content should be removed along with a requested rename to a neutral title
Ever since the Egyptian Revolution of 2013, political content in Egypt here on Wikipedia has had a visible bias against the Egyptian government. This shitty article, along with 2013 Egyptian coup d'état, are the two most obviously biased articles. Blatant POV follows the same fucking stupid narrative as the Muslim Brotherhood, whose first-party sources confuse international media. I think this encyclopedia should more rely more heavily on Al-Ahram's English website and Daily News Egypt, which are as unbiased as imaginable. Also, requesting rename to "August 2013 Rabaa and Nahda sit-ins raid" or something like that. 197.167.6.0 (Zakawer as anonymous user) (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this article it seem to convey the opinion and not provide the facts, the citations are weak and misrepresent the facts. Who chooses the title ? 118.211.192.60 (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the title is fine as it is. A great many civilians were killed, and this has been corroborated by the likes of HRW who are considered to be neutral in this case. Perhaps you could provide specific examples of how the article conveys "opinion and not facts"? And could the OP please refrain from using abusive language, it's not needed and is disrespectful. Muzher (talk • contribs) 16:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The lamestream media of the Western world (with minor exceptions such as Fox News) have a record of failures in accurately reporting on the Muslim Brotherhood as a whole, including its Egyptian division; this explains their terrible coverage of Egypt. Here are a few links explaining the epic fails of the U.S. mainstream media to properly report on the MB; you should go read 'em:
Also, HRW is a bunch of poorly-informed but well-intentioned dudes. They most likely got their information on the sit-in dispersal from MB members. The title is clearly one-sided, and reflects the MB's bullshit agenda it pushes towards Westerners to make it seem like a bunch of peaceful dudes. Nevertheless, the NCHR released a superior report before HRW released its own report which explains the sit-in dispersal properly. Read this article, which explains it in brief:
August 2013 Rabaa massacre -> August 2013 Rabaa and Nahda sit-ins dispersal
Recently, I've cleaned up the article of POV, and here is a much more accurate title. Also doesn't feature the word "massacre," which is a one-sided and biased word which fits into the Brotherhood's narrative, as an earlier user noted in the past section. Should we keep the title as is, change it to my proposed version, or take a third option? Thanks. Zakawer (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: A broad-spectrum of reliable sources refer to incident as Rabaa Massacre. Further, injecting one's own biases and POV doesn't qualify as clean-up. -- dsprc[talk] 07:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A quick search indicates that "massacre" is the term commonly used by international press (Washington Post, The Guardian, Al Jazeera). Even searching for "sit-in dispersal" brings up articles whose headlines call it "massacre", while the former term seems to be used almost exclusively by Egyptian press. This brings the change in conflict with NPOV per WP:UNDUE. Eperoton (talk) 02:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as I am the person who made this proposal. Zakawer (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this is the title that's overwhelmingly used by reliable news outlets and scholars. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Moving these MB, armed people was not a massacre. They weren't innocent civilians. They were asked to leave for a long time. Like in the Waco siege people died when Janet Reno asked to make a move and get them out. But the main media WP, Al Jazeera and Guardian are biased against Egypt and for MB -that's why they call it a massacre. Egypt is still fighting the MB in Sinai with police being killed almost every day. I don't know what the correct title should be but I don't think it should be called a massacre. Maybe it should be named the Rabaa siege. Hisham Barakat, the general prosecutor, who ordered the people to be moved from Rabaa was assassinated a year later. Another example where it was called a seige is here Siege of La Rochelle . Also note this (copied from the Al Jazeera WP article) "The network is sometimes perceived to have mainly Islamist perspectives, promoting the Muslim Brotherhood, and having a pro-Sunni and an anti-Shia bias in its reporting of regional issues."[1][2][3] So we shouldn't be calling it a reliable source on this specific topic related to the Muslim Brotherhood.The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose the move request on several grounds. First, the phrase "rabaa massacre" returns 18,600 hits on Google, while "rabaa dispersal" or "rabaa sit-in dispersal" return only 2,600 hits. Therefore per WP:COMMONNAME "massacre" is the globally recognized title of this event. Second, "massacre" is the term used by reliable sources from the right, center, left, mainstream, and financial press from all over the world, and by human rights organizations [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. Lastly, a "massacre" is what actually occurred, and we shouldn't be engaged in WP:EUPHEMISM here. -Darouet (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
